On 08/08/2019 05.16, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 03:52:28PM -0700, Julius Werner wrote: > >> The Linux ramdisk should always be decompressed by the kernel itself, >> not by U-Boot. Therefore, the 'compression' node in the FIT image should >> always be set to "none" for ramdisk images, since the only point of >> using that node is if you want U-Boot to do the decompression itself. >> >> Yet some systems populate the node to the compression algorithm used by >> the kernel instead. This used to be ignored, but now that we support >> decompression of all image types it becomes a problem. Since ramdisks >> should never be decompressed by U-Boot anyway, this patch adds a special >> exception for them to avoid these issues. Still, setting the >> 'compression' node like that is wrong in the first place, so we still >> want to print out a warning so that third-party distributions doing this >> can notice and fix it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Julius Werner <jwer...@chromium.org> >> Reviewed-by: Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> >> Tested-by: Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> >> Reviewed-by: Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschm...@gmail.com>
This part + if (image_type == IH_TYPE_RAMDISK && comp != IH_COMP_NONE) + puts("WARNING: 'compression' nodes for ramdisks are deprecated," + " please fix your .its file!\n"); + ends up being a little confusing, because when one dutifully removes the compression = "foo" property, the warning is still there (because comp ends up being (u8)-1) - the only way to silence it is by actually _having_ a 'compression = "none"' property. (It also says node instead of property). So, what is the intention? Should ramdisk images not have a compression property at all, or must it be present but set to "none", or are either acceptable? Rasmus